[KJC1]

I have tried to not comment on this because my attempts to clarify things in a couple of threads about 2 weeks ago fell on mostly deaf ears. I'll probably regret jumping back in here, but this is driving me nuts:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

This is simply not true. I was born in Hawaii have a Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" right before my very eyes and my copy says clear as day "DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR".

In fact, the BC put up by Dolores or Doris whoever that people are gobbling up looks funny to me, not Obama's. That's not to say Dolores (who is this person anyway, and why is she deemed credible?) has offered up a fake, but rather a version that looks significantly different than mine--and Obama's.

I am watching this whole thing unravel like a train wreck in slow motion. And I pray to God I am wrong, but from the beginning, this has felt like the Obama camp taking a page out of the Rovian rope-a-dope playbook.

While I'm at it, I'm pinging a couple of FReepers (the minority on this thread) who seem to share the same concern.

[Jet Jaguar]

Ping.

And thanks.

[null and void]

Excellent!

I’ve been hoping an Hawaiian born FReeper would show up.

You’ve said your BC is different that the “gold standard” Dolores (or Doris) is funny, and different than yours.

You don’t quite say that the Obama one looks like your known good one.

Does it? In particular would you please use post #1,027 as a guide and compare them?

Thanks!

[BIGLOOK]

And I pray to God I am wrong, but from the beginning, this has felt like the Obama camp taking a page out of the Rovian rope-a-dope playbook.

There is something scary about all this; false documents, pictures of HNL airport that's really San Francisco, a hospital that wasn't in business in 1961, times and places that don't correlate to any time line. And all of it has been dished up to us by Obama's campaign website or his surrogates. Nothing has been definitively proved or disproved nor will it be. You can't prove a negative but you can look foolish trying.

If Obama wanted me to cash a large check and offered that Birth Certificate as proof of identity, I'd laugh and tell him to go away. (My son was born here, I know a real one when I see it.) But all it tells me is that he has a fake, it doesn't tell me he wasn't born here.

All the rest doesn't add up either but it gets us no closer to the truth about this candidate other than he's a slimy, conniving conman with beaucoup bucks financing him, all pro handlers promoting him and legions of mindless cheerleaders wanting a photo op with him. There's a sucker punch coming, I don't know what it is other than to brand us all racists or paranoids or nativists.....some catchy moniker that can be used to political advantage in Obama's campaign.

[DCPatriot]

Thanks for the ping! You have no idea how much I appreciate it.

Seems everybody's trying to be a Buckhead...but they're missing it by just a letter....if you know what I mean.

[WOSG]

First, thanks for clarifying that your BC format matches obama's.

"I am watching this whole thing unravel like a train wreck in slow motion. And I pray to God I am wrong, but from the beginning, this has felt like the Obama camp taking a page out of the Rovian rope-a-dope playbook."

I share the same concern. It is utter nonsense to suppose that Ann Dunham, poor Univ of Hawaii college drop-out, and Barack Obama Sr, attendee of same, would vacate their college situation and fly off somewhere just for the privilege of having a less-safe birth for their son and ensuring that he wont be eligible for the Presidency. So why this bizarre theory that Obama wasnt born where his Mom said he was?

Everyone keeps looking for a special twist in the plot. THERE IS NONE. This is just a rerun of the Jimmy Carter era, and the sequels are NEVER as good as the original.

[Fred Nerks]

I have tried to not comment on this because my attempts to clarify things in a couple of threads about 2 weeks ago fell on mostly deaf ears. I'll probably regret jumping back in here, but this is driving me nuts:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

This is simply not true. I was born in Hawaii have a Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" right before my very eyes and my copy says clear as day "DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR".

I've read that part of your comment several times now, and it seems to me you have a similar problem as does the Candidate. Does your document show a seal? Who, yourself or someone else, applied for it? Who supplied the information shown on the document to the Hawaii Department of Health?

Rather than proof of validity, you may have simply unearthed a skeleton in your own family closet...apologies in advance if I am wrong.

[Spunky]

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

This is simply not true. I was born in Hawaii have a Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" right before my very eyes and my copy says clear as day "DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR".

"In fact, the BC put up by Dolores or Doris whoever that people are gobbling up looks funny to me, not Obama's. That's not to say Dolores (who is this person anyway, and why is she deemed credible?) has offered up a fake, but rather a version that looks significantly different than mine--and Obama's.

I will give you the fact that your's and Obama's stating DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR is not a problem like someone tried to indicate, but you also state that the other person's birth certificate that was put up as an official one is SIGNIFICANTLY different than yours. Now I would like to know what those significant differences are? Since you say yours is like Obama's, the difference I notice between his and the other women's is he has no embossed state seal, or signature from an official and hers does. Are you stating that yours had no embossed state seal or signature either. Let me know what differences you see between yours and the other womens.